How does someone who’s nothing to do with the campaign end up at the count?
How does a party let someone with a conviction for election fraud anywhere near the count?
Sounds like someone is collecting evidence here, reports of voters turning up to be told they’d voted by post already appear very, err, Tower Hamlets-esque?
Good points. Whoever let him anywhere near the campaign, assuming they did and he is not just a chancer with a rosette, needs a stern talking-to. On the other hand, the allegations do seem a bit third or fourth hand, rather late in the day, and from a Conservative rather than Brexit Party source.
Remember that the BP’s idea of a ground game was manning a stall on the High St on Election Day, only Lab and Con really have boots on the ground in the town.
Some parts do seem a little vague, and the story is in the Mail so another pinch of salt there, but if there’s any evidence of ballot boxes getting stuffed that’s a worrying development. Big IF there, of course - although the presence of the convicted ballot box stuffer is probably a good starting point, even if circumstantial evidence at this stage.
The Brexit Party might be naive and disorganised but they'd have had people at the polling stations and at the count.
If voters were turned away because they'd already voted then it would surely have been reported (by the officials doing the turning away) to the returning officer and thence to the police. The Mail says nothing from these sources, not even that they'd been asked to comment.
And in any case, would these voters have been turned away or been given provisional ballots?
The Mail story has no evidence of any offence, no comments from police or returning officer or even from the close losers. Rather thin gruel.
On a more practical note we can hardly have a PM whose eligibility for a US visa waiver is in doubt. He also can't be given a consolation prize of Foreign Office for the same reason, or Home Office or justice because hypocrisy.
On a practical note, if he's PM somebody can get him a visa
Obviously. But it wouldn't be a great backdrop to his first visit there, with special features everywhere about how the rules for ordinary folk don't apply to our cokehead PM, would it now?
Don't think anyone would care TBH, nobody expects Prime Ministers to have to jump through immigration hoops like the rest of us chumps.
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Nah, he'll be given something like transport where he can make some kind of difference but also close off any leadership ambitions.
Grand projects are one of the few things Boris Johnson is passionate about. I doubt he'd give a job like that to someone who would either sabotage his ideas or take the credit for them.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Question - Does doing coke once make you a cokehead or a coke fiend ? Or did Michael have a err "problem" ?
Back in the very very early 80's I was on the 'advisory committee' for a pharmaceutical wholesalesaler, and once, at a post-meeting dinner, sat to a very attractive girl indeed from our advertising agency. To my amazement she asked me about the long-term effects of cocaine, as, IIRC, 'they used it at some of their meetings.'
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Nah, he'll be given something like transport where he can make some kind of difference but also close off any leadership ambitions.
Grand projects are one of the few things Boris Johnson is passionate about. I doubt he'd give a job like that to someone who would either sabotage his ideas or take the credit for them.
Sturgeons status vs 2019 Westminster politicians far better than Salmonds was in 2016 vs Cameron. Indeed plenty of floating voters would accept Corbyn plus Sturgeon but be petrified of a Corbyn outright majority.
There's something in that, I expect (and the same goes for "dependent on LibDems"). The old "coalition of chaos" line isn't going to work either any more, since the Conservatives have bene providing a more chaotic coalition than we could possibly imagine.
Yes bribing the DUP to help prop them up has blown any doubts that having a sane SNP as a reasonable partner could be bad. Good enough for both of them , hard to tell who is holding a long spoon and who is the devil between the Tories and the DUP, but Tories edge it.
I don't think many Brexit Party voters who want Britain to 'take back control' would be too keen on Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
Compared with having Corbyn and McDonnell going on the rampage unchecked, practically any coalition or confidence and supply partner is to be welcomed with open arms.
People may or may not agree with the policy aims of the SNP, but at least they aren't mad.
And they believe in parliamentary democracy. I am unconvinced that can be truly said of Jezza's inner circle.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
After the revelation of how awful Theresa May was in 2017, you would think Conservatives would be demanding to test candidates in debates. Once bitten, twice shy.
The Great Charlatan looked like a good 2.0 bet a week ago. Is he an even better 1.5 bet now? I'm thinking maybe so. I have a balanced book that gives solid but unspectacular profits on everyone (I have this because I built it up on the basis of laying Jez for next PM quite heavily and over a long period at single digit prices) but am now considering skewing this by going all in on BJ, i.e. adjusting to flat on all bar him.
Is that a professional or an amateur move? This is the question I need to ask myself. If it's amateur I must not - as a pro - do it. And by the same token if it's professional I MUST do it.
The money is almost irrelevant. Loss of self respect if I get this wrong.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
This BBC “Debate” accouncement appears to be completely off their own backs, and smacks of trying to one-up Sky and Adam Boulton more than anything else.
The party would be better off organising their own hustings (they will anyway) and offering a live feed to YouTube and any broadcaster who wishes to take it.
Question - Does doing coke once make you a cokehead or a coke fiend ? Or did Michael have a err "problem" ?
Back in the very very early 80's I was on the 'advisory committee' for a pharmaceutical wholesalesaler, and once, at a post-meeting dinner, sat to a very attractive girl indeed from our advertising agency. To my amazement she asked me about the long-term effects of cocaine, as, IIRC, 'they used it at some of their meetings.'
Scott's last expedition had literally pounds of the stuff for topical application for snow blindness (because Scott was too much of an arse to learn from Arctic dwellers about using goggles like Amundsen did). I don't know if this produces the psychological effects of the drug but it might do - somebody famous claims they used to take it via suppository to protect their nose - personally I wouldn't like too much soft tissue damage in either area.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
This BBC “Debate” accouncement appears to be completely off their own backs, and smacks of trying to one-up Sky and Adam Boulton more than anything else.
The party would be better off organising their own hustings (they will anyway) and offering a live feed to YouTube and any broadcaster who wishes to take it.
Couldn't disagree more.
One of the most critical jobs of Party Leader [if not PM] is how they handle the media. The televised debates next General Election will not be avoidable and will be crucial. Whoever is going to be representing the Party at the election will be better off for having gone through that scrutiny this time.
The Great Charlatan looked like a good 2.0 bet a week ago. Is he an even better 1.5 bet now? I'm thinking maybe so. I have a balanced book that gives solid but unspectacular profits on everyone (I have this because I built it up on the basis of laying Jez for next PM quite heavily and over a long period at single digit prices) but am now considering skewing this by going all in on BJ, i.e. adjusting to flat on all bar him.
Is that a professional or an amateur move? This is the question I need to ask myself. If it's amateur I must not - as a pro - do it. And by the same token if it's professional I MUST do it.
The money is almost irrelevant. Loss of self respect if I get this wrong.
It is a bit early to go all in. Generally the pro's would not want to tie up their whole bank this far out. However, if you think Boris is home and hosed (and I remain Boris-sceptic so will not be joining you, or probably not) then even at 1/2 there may be value in Boris as a trading bet. Boris would be half that or less in any final pairing, and you can work back to estimate the prices after each interim stage.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
It is not for the broadcasters to decide how any political party conducts its leadership elections. At most, there might be a case for a debate between the final two submitted to members , but the earlier rounds are confined to Tory MPs. I recall no such debates from 2016 when Cameron stood down.Theresa May did not debate with Leadsom, Gove et al.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Interesting that on this polling that a majority or plurality of voters do not think it acceptable for MPs or CEOs to have taken any drugs, even in the past, bar magic mushrooms and cannabis. Even there over 40% think it unacceptable to have taken magic mushrooms and almost a third think it unacceptable to have taken cannabis.
That shows there is still a significant proportion of the electorate who think it unacceptable to have taken drugs and probably a higher percentage amongst more conservative Tory Party members. As a result that might give a boost to Sajid Javid who is the only top-tier Tory leadership candidate not to have said they have taken drugs in the past
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
It is not for the broadcasters to decide how any political party conducts its leadership elections. At most, there might be a case for a debate between the final two submitted to members , but the earlier rounds are confined to Tory MPs. I recall no such debates from 2016 when Cameron stood down.Theresa May did not debate with Leadsom, Gove et al.
It is not for the broadcasters to decide how the political party conducts its election, but it is for the broadcasters to decide how they want to report on it including hosting debates. As indeed it will be up to them how they do that for a General Election too.
Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken illegal drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Whoever wins will be Prime Minister, it is rightly of the public interest. I'd say the same even for Leader of the Opposition too were Corbyn to resign. Its not as if we're talking about an Orange Taxi party.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
Perhaps the four of them could have a party together to break their ducks.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Revenge would be to put him in charge of Brexit.
Yes, I can see Boris making Gove Brexit Secretary
The issue with that is Gove being loyal to the Withdrawal Agreement to the bitter end. Surely Boris needs a Brexit Secretary who wants to change it as much as he does? Maybe Raab can return to the role?
Question - Does doing coke once make you a cokehead or a coke fiend ? Or did Michael have a err "problem" ?
Back in the very very early 80's I was on the 'advisory committee' for a pharmaceutical wholesalesaler, and once, at a post-meeting dinner, sat to a very attractive girl indeed from our advertising agency. To my amazement she asked me about the long-term effects of cocaine, as, IIRC, 'they used it at some of their meetings.'
Scott's last expedition had literally pounds of the stuff for topical application for snow blindness (because Scott was too much of an arse to learn from Arctic dwellers about using goggles like Amundsen did). I don't know if this produces the psychological effects of the drug but it might do - somebody famous claims they used to take it via suppository to protect their nose - personally I wouldn't like too much soft tissue damage in either area.
That gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'a smacked arse.'
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
I don't think many Brexit Party voters who want Britain to 'take back control' would be too keen on Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
There's a deal to be done between Farage and Sturgeon if it came to that. Farage always favoured much more Scottish devolution, and I think he'd be fine with the model originally proposed by the SNP in the Scotland's Place in Europe paper.
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
How does someone who’s nothing to do with the campaign end up at the count?
How does a party let someone with a conviction for election fraud anywhere near the count?
Sounds like someone is collecting evidence here, reports of voters turning up to be told they’d voted by post already appear very, err, Tower Hamlets-esque?
Good points. Whoever let him anywhere near the campaign, assuming they did and he is not just a chancer with a rosette, needs a stern talking-to. On the other hand, the allegations do seem a bit third or fourth hand, rather late in the day, and from a Conservative rather than Brexit Party source.
Remember that the BP’s idea of a ground game was manning a stall on the High St on Election Day, only Lab and Con really have boots on the ground in the town.
Some parts do seem a little vague, and the story is in the Mail so another pinch of salt there, but if there’s any evidence of ballot boxes getting stuffed that’s a worrying development. Big IF there, of course - although the presence of the convicted ballot box stuffer is probably a good starting point, even if circumstantial evidence at this stage.
The Brexit Party might be naive and disorganised but they'd have had people at the polling stations and at the count.
If voters were turned away because they'd already voted then it would surely have been reported (by the officials doing the turning away) to the returning officer and thence to the police. The Mail says nothing from these sources, not even that they'd been asked to comment.
And in any case, would these voters have been turned away or been given provisional ballots?
The Mail story has no evidence of any offence, no comments from police or returning officer or even from the close losers. Rather thin gruel.
A quick look round finds that not even Guido has picked up the Mail's story, nor ConHome or the other papers. Perhaps if their journalists can stand it up, they will report it later.
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Revenge would be to put him in charge of Brexit.
Yes, I can see Boris making Gove Brexit Secretary
He'd be wise to reject it.
'This has been a bruising campaign which has given me much to reflect upon personally. I wish X/Boris well and offer them all my support in the challenges our nation faces, but I feel this is best done from the backbenches.'
Retreats to writing unhelpful guff in tabloids and waits for next opportunity.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
They didn't do it in 2001 because nobody cared. Prior to that, there was no point as the entire electorate could fit into one room for the hustings (as usually happened e.g. in 1956-7).
In 2016 they undoubtedly would have offered that facility had the ballot gone to the members as they did in 2005.
For 1994, I think quite probably the rather tragic circumstances played a part.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
It is not for the broadcasters to decide how any political party conducts its leadership elections. At most, there might be a case for a debate between the final two submitted to members , but the earlier rounds are confined to Tory MPs. I recall no such debates from 2016 when Cameron stood down.Theresa May did not debate with Leadsom, Gove et al.
It is not for the broadcasters to decide how the political party conducts its election, but it is for the broadcasters to decide how they want to report on it including hosting debates. As indeed it will be up to them how they do that for a General Election too.
Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.
It is not unreasonable for the politicians to stick to precedents - and indeed to cite them. I don't accept that GE debates are inevitable either - there has been no consistency in the formats adopted in 2010 , 2015 and 2017. Parties which do not wish to appear can simply reject the formats being offered by broadcasters - and 'fail to agree'. Recently the debates between May and Corbyn re-Brexit failed to happen.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Whoever wins will be Prime Minister, it is rightly of the public interest. I'd say the same even for Leader of the Opposition too were Corbyn to resign. Its not as if we're talking about an Orange Taxi party.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
Hmmm, you may be right but still think I would rather have my nipples pierced with a broken bottle than listen to that bunch of lying chancers.
Sturgeons status vs 2019 Westminster politicians far better than Salmonds was in 2016 vs Cameron. Indeed plenty of floating voters would accept Corbyn plus Sturgeon but be petrified of a Corbyn outright majority.
There's something in that, I expect (and the same goes for "dependent on LibDems"). The old "coalition of chaos" line isn't going to work either any more, since the Conservatives have bene providing a more chaotic coalition than we could possibly imagine.
Note the word petrified. When floating voters are petrified of your leader you have the wrong man. He is fortunate that the alternatives are almost equally terrible.
A Labour landslide is readily available if they ditch Corbyn. They could probably actually keep most of the Corbyn policies but change the tone, ditch the nastiness and anti-semitism and take away the concern that Corbyn is just the start of a marxist state.
Is it? Even if you combine the Labour and LD votes in the latest polling it is not much different from the combined Tory and Brexit Party total
I think this is maybe getting overblown, hypocricy is the most fundamental principle of conservatism, I know they've been entryized but I don't see why they should completely abandon their values.
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
Aha, so we can add the Brexit Party's votes to the pro-independence column?
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Whoever wins will be Prime Minister, it is rightly of the public interest. I'd say the same even for Leader of the Opposition too were Corbyn to resign. Its not as if we're talking about an Orange Taxi party.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
That is very much a matter of opinion. No more in the public interest today than in 1963, 1965, 1975 or 1976.
I don't think many Brexit Party voters who want Britain to 'take back control' would be too keen on Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
There's a deal to be done between Farage and Sturgeon if it came to that. Farage always favoured much more Scottish devolution, and I think he'd be fine with the model originally proposed by the SNP in the Scotland's Place in Europe paper.
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
Yes they got the UKIP/protest votes as it would not harm anyone for another numpty like Coburn to be in EU. Would be different if it was a real election where it actually counted for something.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
That's quite a strange list. I'm particularly intrigued to learn apparently should get life bans for engaging in sexual activity.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Its not a ban for engaging in sexual activity, it is a ban for convictions involving sexual activity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
It's still incredibly badly worded. But why am I surprised given this is an organisation that couldn't even write a simple marking criteria correctly?
How is it badly worded? The word offences is in bold above the list, then it explains before the list it is about offences that led to a term of imprisonment that involve any of the following would be "a relevant offence".
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
The important question, now that Gove has blown up his own campaign, is whether he can still successfully derail BoZo.
Or not.
If he pulls down Boris then we get Raab, or possibly Leadsom. Shoot me now.
If Gove goes out then much of his support will go to Raab certainly, with the rest probably to Hunt or Boris or Javid. It is not impossible it could then be a Raab v Boris final 2 which would be much closer, though Hunt would also have a stronger chance of reaching the last 2.
I can see a lot of Gove MPs going to Javid though and with Javid not having admitted taking illegal drugs it could be the Saj who benefited most from a Gove exit and who would now have a chance to make the runoff
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
Why? When the broadcaster will be who holds them up to the public for their entire term of office including General Election debates?
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
That's quite a strange list. I'm particularly intrigued to learn apparently should get life bans for engaging in sexual activity.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Its not a ban for engaging in sexual activity, it is a ban for convictions involving sexual activity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
It's still incredibly badly worded. But why am I surprised given this is an organisation that couldn't even write a simple marking criteria correctly?
How is it badly worded? The word offences is in bold above the list, then it explains before the list it is about offences that led to a term of imprisonment that involve any of the following would be "a relevant offence".
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
None that I know of. But it should say 'sexual offences,' not 'sexual activity.'
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Whoever wins will be Prime Minister, it is rightly of the public interest. I'd say the same even for Leader of the Opposition too were Corbyn to resign. Its not as if we're talking about an Orange Taxi party.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
That is very much a matter of opinion. No more in the public interest today than in 1963, 1965, 1975 or 1976.
Times have changed. We didn't have General Election debates or 24/7 news channels then either.
That's quite a strange list. I'm particularly intrigued to learn apparently should get life bans for engaging in sexual activity.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Its not a ban for engaging in sexual activity, it is a ban for convictions involving sexual activity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
It's still incredibly badly worded. But why am I surprised given this is an organisation that couldn't even write a simple marking criteria correctly?
How is it badly worded? The word offences is in bold above the list, then it explains before the list it is about offences that led to a term of imprisonment that involve any of the following would be "a relevant offence".
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
None that I know of. But it should say 'sexual offences,' not 'sexual activity.'
Why? The whole list is about offences. The word offences is used in bold as the subject and repeatedly above the list.
"Fraud or serious dishonesty" doesn't have the word offences either.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
Why? When the broadcaster will be who holds them up to the public for their entire term of office including General Election debates?
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
Avoiding most of the debates in 2015 did not seem to harm Cameron .
He can only lose from it as his fantasy EU plan comes under scrutiny .
But refusing to appear isn’t a good look if you want to be the next PM.
I don't see why he would lose from a debate. The selectorate who will choose the next leader already believe the fantasy that it will be easy, without much pain, and as simple as just believing in it hard enough. He can fall back on that if his opponents try to get into detail, not least because most of them are relying on arguing a position which is unreaslitic as well.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
Why? When the broadcaster will be who holds them up to the public for their entire term of office including General Election debates?
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
Avoiding most of the debates in 2015 did not seem to harm Cameron .
He played the opposition and media against each other quite smartly and agreed to the debates that worked best for him. May simply refused to turn up at all which backfired massively when Corbyn turned up.
Why is everyone(?) assuming that the Gove revelation was a 'voluntary' admission? Isn't it more likely that somebody at the Daily Mail was tipped off about a Mail on Sunday scoop, and gave Gove the opportunity to try and spike it?
The Brexit Party might be naive and disorganised but they'd have had people at the polling stations and at the count.
If voters were turned away because they'd already voted then it would surely have been reported (by the officials doing the turning away) to the returning officer and thence to the police. The Mail says nothing from these sources, not even that they'd been asked to comment.
And in any case, would these voters have been turned away or been given provisional ballots?
The Mail story has no evidence of any offence, no comments from police or returning officer or even from the close losers. Rather thin gruel.
I am aware there was this story in the local paper from the so called 'Democracy Volunteers' which observed people taking photos of their ballot papers on their phones and so called 'family voting' (i.e. multiple people entering the polling booth together). I am sure it was all perfectly innocent but who knows what voter intimidation might have been linked to it.
I do note the Tories and Labour have all been pretty relaxed about this generally - but were suitably outraged when Lutfur Rahman was found to have used 'creative turnout' approaches to win the 2014 Mayoral race in Tower Hamlets.
We had court challenges, high court rulings, independent and police investigations, the election being overturned and Rahman banned from running in the rerun, the council being taken over by Whitehall appointed commissioners because the Mayor awarded funds to groups he supported to help boost his vote (the main parties would never use taxpayer funds to boost votes amongst their target supporters would they?!). Apparently abuse of postal votes, use of false addresses to cast votes, multiple people at single addresses found and voters being bribed with food and drink was identified.
Considering Rahman had been a Labour councillor for 8 years before hand including 2 years as Labour council leader you must wonder where he and his former Labour activist supporters and councillors learned their 'election winning skills'? ......
Labour seemed to have a huge issue with it - when it was being used against them and causing them to lose elections!
That's quite a strange list. I'm particularly intrigued to learn apparently should get life bans for engaging in sexual activity.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Its not a ban for engaging in sexual activity, it is a ban for convictions involving sexual activity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
It's still incredibly badly worded. But why am I surprised given this is an organisation that couldn't even write a simple marking criteria correctly?
How is it badly worded? The word offences is in bold above the list, then it explains before the list it is about offences that led to a term of imprisonment that involve any of the following would be "a relevant offence".
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
None that I know of. But it should say 'sexual offences,' not 'sexual activity.'
Maybe not. I can think of schools where any sort of activity would be a sign that the teacher in question wasn't working hard enough.
Incidentally- wasn't there a story recently about Guido being Official Social Media Provider to the Boris campaign?
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
Perhaps the four of them could have a party together to break their ducks.
Then I hope when they are asked they say 'Not yet, but when I achieve Brexit it is going to be a big old nostril party round here'.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Whoever wins will be Prime Minister, it is rightly of the public interest. I'd say the same even for Leader of the Opposition too were Corbyn to resign. Its not as if we're talking about an Orange Taxi party.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
That is very much a matter of opinion. No more in the public interest today than in 1963, 1965, 1975 or 1976.
Times have changed. We didn't have General Election debates or 24/7 news channels then either.
I do not see that that matters - indeed TV probably has less influence on elections today than in the 1980s & 1990s due to the growth of social media etc. People are far less glued to their television sets compared with the 1970s & 1960s.
That's quite a strange list. I'm particularly intrigued to learn apparently should get life bans for engaging in sexual activity.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Its not a ban for engaging in sexual activity, it is a ban for convictions involving sexual activity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
It's still incredibly badly worded. But why am I surprised given this is an organisation that couldn't even write a simple marking criteria correctly?
How is it badly worded? The word offences is in bold above the list, then it explains before the list it is about offences that led to a term of imprisonment that involve any of the following would be "a relevant offence".
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
None that I know of. But it should say 'sexual offences,' not 'sexual activity.'
Why? The whole list is about offences. The word offences is used in bold as the subject and repeatedly above the list.
"Fraud or serious dishonesty" doesn't have the word offences either.
Fraud is a recognised criminal offence. Sexual activity in and of itself is not.
And I think the word they should have used for the second one is 'perjury,' but that's a word that might have been too dim to have heard of.
It is a bit early to go all in. Generally the pro's would not want to tie up their whole bank this far out. However, if you think Boris is home and hosed (and I remain Boris-sceptic so will not be joining you, or probably not) then even at 1/2 there may be value in Boris as a trading bet. Boris would be half that or less in any final pairing, and you can work back to estimate the prices after each interim stage.
Thanks for thoughts. It won't tie up anything because I would be flat on the rest.
Might hold off though. Like you I hope something derails him and I guess it is not impossible. Him being what he is.
In a Boris cabinet who would lose their jobs outside Hammond, Gauke, and hopefully Grayling
Greg Clark would also go in a Boris Cabinet and David Liddington ie mainly those most closely connected to May. Boris could do a reverse of May's sweep out of the Cameroons. I would also fancy Boris to replace Brandon Lewis as Party chairman with James Cleverly
That's quite a strange list. I'm particularly intrigued to learn apparently should get life bans for engaging in sexual activity.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Its not a ban for engaging in sexual activity, it is a ban for convictions involving sexual activity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
It's still incredibly badly worded. But why am I surprised given this is an organisation that couldn't even write a simple marking criteria correctly?
How is it badly worded? The word offences is in bold above the list, then it explains before the list it is about offences that led to a term of imprisonment that involve any of the following would be "a relevant offence".
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
None that I know of. But it should say 'sexual offences,' not 'sexual activity.'
Maybe not. I can think of schools where any sort of activity would be a sign that the teacher in question wasn't working hard enough.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
Why? When the broadcaster will be who holds them up to the public for their entire term of office including General Election debates?
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
Avoiding most of the debates in 2015 did not seem to harm Cameron .
He played the opposition and media against each other quite smartly and agreed to the debates that worked best for him. May simply refused to turn up at all which backfired massively when Corbyn turned up.
That could well happen again - parties will do what suits their interests at a particular time.
Why is everyone(?) assuming that the Gove revelation was a 'voluntary' admission? Isn't it more likely that somebody at the Daily Mail was tipped off about a Mail on Sunday scoop, and gave Gove the opportunity to try and spike it?
Mr Gove, 51, made his admission before the publication of Michael Gove: A Man in a Hurry, a biography by the journalist Owen Bennett. The book claims that Mr Gove first confessed to his past use of cocaine to advisers during the 2016 Conservative leadership election, in which he finished third. He was allegedly advised against admitting to it in public and told to avoid answering questions about drug use.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
Why? When the broadcaster will be who holds them up to the public for their entire term of office including General Election debates?
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
Avoiding most of the debates in 2015 did not seem to harm Cameron .
That was a triumph in negotiations from the Conservatives. Played to all of Cameron’s strengths and all of Miliband’s weaknesses.
I thought it was symptomatic of the 2017 campaign that May was unwilling/unable to participate in the leaders debates. High handed arrogance.
I’m not surprised his goons are trying to get Gove out before the debates...
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
Absolutely not! Anyone who refuses to turn up to the debates should automatically be saying they're not suitable to become PM in the 21st century. May's refusal to turn up to the debates probably cost her the majority.
There is no place for public debates other than to Tory members. Rest of the public don't want involved in their grubby election of another useless party head. My licence money should not be wasted on this type of stuff, Jeremy Kyle was rightly banned, we don't need a proxy Tory show to replace it.
Whoever wins will be Prime Minister, it is rightly of the public interest. I'd say the same even for Leader of the Opposition too were Corbyn to resign. Its not as if we're talking about an Orange Taxi party.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
That is very much a matter of opinion. No more in the public interest today than in 1963, 1965, 1975 or 1976.
Times have changed. We didn't have General Election debates or 24/7 news channels then either.
I do not see that that matters - indeed TV probably has less influence on elections today than in the 1980s & 1990s due to the growth of social media etc. People are far less glued to their television sets compared with the 1970s & 1960s.
Yes and no, they're less glued to their TV sets during live broadcasts, but much of what goes viral (especially during elections) is snippets from debates etc - especially where the leader of a party is caught off guard.
See for example the reactions to May telling a nurse there was no magic money tree, or Milliband telling the QT audience that Labour didn't overspend in office.
The Brexit Party might be naive and disorganised but they'd have had people at the polling stations and at the count.
If voters were turned away because they'd already voted then it would surely have been reported (by the officials doing the turning away) to the returning officer and thence to the police. The Mail says nothing from these sources, not even that they'd been asked to comment.
And in any case, would these voters have been turned away or been given provisional ballots?
The Mail story has no evidence of any offence, no comments from police or returning officer or even from the close losers. Rather thin gruel.
I am aware there was this story in the local paper from the so called 'Democracy Volunteers' which observed people taking photos of their ballot papers and so called 'family voting' (i.e. multiple people entering the polling booth together). I am sure it was all perfectly innocent but who knows what voter intimidation might have been linked to it.
I do note the Tories and Labour have all been pretty relaxed about this generally - but were suitably outraged when Lutfur Rahman was found to have used creative turnout approaches to win the 2014 Mayoral race in Tower Hamlets. We had court challenges, high court rulings, independent investigations, the election being overturned, the council being taken over by Whitehall appointed commissioners because the Mayor awarded funds to groups he supported to help boost his vote (the main parties would never do that!). Apparently abuse of postal votes, use of false addresses to cast votes, multiple people at single addresses found and voters being bribed with food and drink was identified.
Considering Rahman had been a Labour councillor for 8 years before hand including 2 years as Labour council leader you must wonder where he learned his election winning skills?
Labour seemed to have a huge issue with it - when it was being used against them and causing them to lose elections!
No candidate should feel obliged to turn up for a debate simply because the broadcasters would like to arrange one. The BBC /ITV did not arrange a debate between Heath and Thatcher in Feb 1975 for Round 1 or between Thatcher, Whitelaw, Prior, Howe & Peyton for Round 2. Perfectly reasonable to respond to their invitation with 'No Thanks'.
And perfectly reasonable for the BBC/ITV/Sky to empty chair Boris and allow the other candidate a free run for 90 minutes ...
Which would raise the question as to why they failed to do so in 2016 ,2001, 1997 & 1990 when Tory leadership contests took place. Ditto re- the Labour leadership in 1994. On princile, I strongly object to cowtowing to the broadcasters as if the latter have the right to decide such matters.Any initiative for a debate should have come from the candidates not vice versa.
All bar one of those elections took place before TV debates became a feature at General Elections. Times have changed.
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
They should of course face debate, but that these debates and discussions should be organised by the party, not by a broadcaster with an agenda.
Why? When the broadcaster will be who holds them up to the public for their entire term of office including General Election debates?
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
If I was a candidate I’d want to know an awful lot about any debate before agreeing to it.
Start with the composition of the audience (party members, or assorted trots and greens)? The selection of the questions, and of the subjects of debate? The to-and-fro format of the debate? The length of the debate (the usual 2-3 hour hustings, or a shorter, packaged-for-tv format)
Also questions about favouritism of one broadcaster over another, and of broadcasters in general trying to insert themselves uninvited into what’s an internal party election. There’s no regulated ‘election period’ and no requirement for the broadcaster to show impartiality.
Much better for the party to organise half a dozen 3-hour hustings and put them all online free of any copyright, 18 hours of debate for anyone who wishes to listen before they cast their vote.
Somebody give him an extra shovel, even though he's doing an excellent job with the one he's got:
'Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, he said: "I do have a profound sense of regret about it all and I am very, very aware of the damage that drugs do." Mr Gove acknowledged he was "fortunate" not to have gone to prison. "I deeply regret the mistake that I made," the environment secretary added, denying he had ever had a drug "habit".'
Headline: Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
Perhaps the four of them could have a party together to break their ducks.
I can't see Javid taking drugs even if offered at a party, he still adheres to Muslim values even if non practising
Somebody give him an extra shovel, even though he's doing an excellent job with the one he's got:
'Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, he said: "I do have a profound sense of regret about it all and I am very, very aware of the damage that drugs do." Mr Gove acknowledged he was "fortunate" not to have gone to prison. "I deeply regret the mistake that I made," the environment secretary added, denying he had ever had a drug "habit".'
Headline: Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use
I am tempted to wonder how we came to this in the last few days?
Who is driving this all - and why is Michael Gove the target. After all most of the candidates are from a generation who at university and beyond must have all been exposed to this sort of thing even if they didn't all partake.
We even have Andrea Leadsom admitted she had smoked cannabis at university but has never done since. Did we need to know?
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Revenge would be to put him in charge of Brexit.
Yes, I can see Boris making Gove Brexit Secretary
The issue with that is Gove being loyal to the Withdrawal Agreement to the bitter end. Surely Boris needs a Brexit Secretary who wants to change it as much as he does? Maybe Raab can return to the role?
Raab was not very good when he did it before, only Gove has the brains to go head to head with Barnier as an equal and get any changes and if Boris is PM he will set the agenda for Gove to follow.
The fact Gove backed the Withdrawal Agreement also makes it more likely Barnier might give him a hearing which would not be the case for Raab
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Revenge would be to put him in charge of Brexit.
Yes, I can see Boris making Gove Brexit Secretary
He'd be wise to reject it.
'This has been a bruising campaign which has given me much to reflect upon personally. I wish X/Boris well and offer them all my support in the challenges our nation faces, but I feel this is best done from the backbenches.'
Retreats to writing unhelpful guff in tabloids and waits for next opportunity.
Gove's wife will insist he takes the job, it would be arguably the most powerful role in government after the PM for a few months
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
Aha, so we can add the Brexit Party's votes to the pro-independence column?
No but then again you cannot add the Brexit Party's votes to the Unionist column either
Surely if Boris Johnson wins, that is the end of Michael Gove as a cabinet minister. Revenge .
Revenge would be to put him in charge of Brexit.
Yes, I can see Boris making Gove Brexit Secretary
He'd be wise to reject it.
'This has been a bruising campaign which has given me much to reflect upon personally. I wish X/Boris well and offer them all my support in the challenges our nation faces, but I feel this is best done from the backbenches.'
Retreats to writing unhelpful guff in tabloids and waits for next opportunity.
Gove's wife will insist he takes the job, it would be arguably the most powerful role in government after the PM for a few months
The Chancellor will remain more important - we have a spending review due soon or at the very least agreeing spending totals to extend the 2015 SR into 2020-21.
Nothing much happened under May re Brexit that Hammond didn't want.
Somebody give him an extra shovel, even though he's doing an excellent job with the one he's got:
'Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, he said: "I do have a profound sense of regret about it all and I am very, very aware of the damage that drugs do." Mr Gove acknowledged he was "fortunate" not to have gone to prison. "I deeply regret the mistake that I made," the environment secretary added, denying he had ever had a drug "habit".'
Headline: Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use
Massively rash, for mere possession you'd expect a caution or fine for a first offence. If you are worried about jail you are worried about being find guilty of possession with intent to supply.
The Mail says Gove *hosted* a party where cocaine was available...
I don't think many Brexit Party voters who want Britain to 'take back control' would be too keen on Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
There's a deal to be done between Farage and Sturgeon if it came to that. Farage always favoured much more Scottish devolution, and I think he'd be fine with the model originally proposed by the SNP in the Scotland's Place in Europe paper.
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
Yes they got the UKIP/protest votes as it would not harm anyone for another numpty like Coburn to be in EU. Would be different if it was a real election where it actually counted for something.
The Brexit Party is still polling 15% in Scotland in the latest YouGov Westminster poll, more than both Labour and the LDs are currently polling in Scotland and just 1% behind the Scottish Tories
Somebody give him an extra shovel, even though he's doing an excellent job with the one he's got:
'Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, he said: "I do have a profound sense of regret about it all and I am very, very aware of the damage that drugs do." Mr Gove acknowledged he was "fortunate" not to have gone to prison. "I deeply regret the mistake that I made," the environment secretary added, denying he had ever had a drug "habit".'
Headline: Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use
Massively rash, for mere possession you'd expect a caution or fine for a first offence. If you are worried about jail you are worried about being find guilty of possession with intent to supply.
The Mail says Gove *hosted* a party where cocaine was available...
Ooh, good spot.
So is the implication that he's not just a smackhead, he's a pusher?
My word, that would put the cat among the pigeons.
Moreover, that's the sort of thing the rozzers might investigate...
I don't think many Brexit Party voters who want Britain to 'take back control' would be too keen on Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
There's a deal to be done between Farage and Sturgeon if it came to that. Farage always favoured much more Scottish devolution, and I think he'd be fine with the model originally proposed by the SNP in the Scotland's Place in Europe paper.
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
Yes they got the UKIP/protest votes as it would not harm anyone for another numpty like Coburn to be in EU. Would be different if it was a real election where it actually counted for something.
The Brexit Party is still polling 15% in Scotland in the latest YouGov Westminster poll, more than both Labour and the LDs are currently polling in Scotland
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
Perhaps the four of them could have a party together to break their ducks.
I can't see Javid taking drugs even if offered at a party, he still adheres to Muslim values even if non practising
Why is everyone(?) assuming that the Gove revelation was a 'voluntary' admission? Isn't it more likely that somebody at the Daily Mail was tipped off about a Mail on Sunday scoop, and gave Gove the opportunity to try and spike it?
Obviously he was getting it in first to limit damage. Lucky coincidence the wife is employed at Daily Mail, and not at all suspicious.
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
Perhaps the four of them could have a party together to break their ducks.
I can't see Javid taking drugs even if offered at a party, he still adheres to Muslim values even if non practising
The moral high ground sought by some Labour members on here is great to see, as if it's any different for senior Labour MPs. The idea that any of our MPs haven't done a line or smoked a bit of weed at least once in their life defies the reality of Westminster.
Most MPs are white and middle class, to not have done a line at least once would be a bigger shock, IMO.
I’m a Labour voter and think people shouldn’t moralize , we’ve all done things we might have regretted.
My issue against Gove isn’t his cocaine use , its the vomit inducing hypocrisy since.
Game over for Gove , the interest now is who he decides to take down with him , Lady Macbeth won’t be happy and will want to exact some revenge .
Oh I agree with that, it's the hypocrisy that will get him but comments on here about all of the Tory leadership being on drugs etc... is a bit much to take from members of the Labour party who's own leadership probably did a lot of regrettable stuff in their younger days.
Which contenders for the Tory leadership have confirmed that they have not taken drugs? They all seem to have done it.
Sajid Javid has certainly not said he has taken drugs, nor has Mark Harper yet or Esther McVey or Sam Gyimah
Perhaps the four of them could have a party together to break their ducks.
I can't see Javid taking drugs even if offered at a party, he still adheres to Muslim values even if non practising
Does Islam allow the smoking of tobacco?
Yes, although recent rulings have been made against it due to the health problems it causes. It's narcotics that are forbidden.
Comments
If voters were turned away because they'd already voted then it would surely have been reported (by the officials doing the turning away) to the returning officer and thence to the police. The Mail says nothing from these sources, not even that they'd been asked to comment.
And in any case, would these voters have been turned away or been given provisional ballots?
The Mail story has no evidence of any offence, no comments from police or returning officer or even from the close losers. Rather thin gruel.
Is that a professional or an amateur move? This is the question I need to ask myself. If it's amateur I must not - as a pro - do it. And by the same token if it's professional I MUST do it.
The money is almost irrelevant. Loss of self respect if I get this wrong.
The party would be better off organising their own hustings (they will anyway) and offering a live feed to YouTube and any broadcaster who wishes to take it.
One of the most critical jobs of Party Leader [if not PM] is how they handle the media. The televised debates next General Election will not be avoidable and will be crucial. Whoever is going to be representing the Party at the election will be better off for having gone through that scrutiny this time.
That shows there is still a significant proportion of the electorate who think it unacceptable to have taken drugs and probably a higher percentage amongst more conservative Tory Party members. As a result that might give a boost to Sajid Javid who is the only top-tier Tory leadership candidate not to have said they have taken drugs in the past
Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.
If Sturgeon decides to resign and there are multiple candidates to replace her as party head and thus First Minister I'd think it is in the public interest to examine those too.
Either there are some words missing, or it's going to be awfully quiet at work tomorrow...
Whoever is leader will have to face the General Election debates, May's failure in 2017 has guaranteed that opting out of them will never be an option again. So why shouldn't they face them now?
He can only lose from it as his fantasy EU plan comes under scrutiny .
But refusing to appear isn’t a good look if you want to be the next PM.
I rebacked him north of 40/1 having laid him at 22/1.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
'This has been a bruising campaign which has given me much to reflect upon personally. I wish X/Boris well and offer them all my support in the challenges our nation faces, but I feel this is best done from the backbenches.'
Retreats to writing unhelpful guff in tabloids and waits for next opportunity.
So convictions for sexual assault, rape, sex with a child etc . . . which seems reasonable.
In 2016 they undoubtedly would have offered that facility had the ballot gone to the members as they did in 2005.
For 1994, I think quite probably the rather tragic circumstances played a part.
How many of your colleagues have had a term of imprisonment due to offences involving sexual activity?
I can see a lot of Gove MPs going to Javid though and with Javid not having admitted taking illegal drugs it could be the Saj who benefited most from a Gove exit and who would now have a chance to make the runoff
If a potential leader can't stand up and be scrutinised by a 'broadcaster with an agenda' how on Earth are they going to cope when there is a General Election? Or simply day to day as PM?
"Fraud or serious dishonesty" doesn't have the word offences either.
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/peterborough-by-election-concern-over-voters-taking-photographs-at-polling-booths-1-8955181
I do note the Tories and Labour have all been pretty relaxed about this generally - but were suitably outraged when Lutfur Rahman was found to have used 'creative turnout' approaches to win the 2014 Mayoral race in Tower Hamlets.
We had court challenges, high court rulings, independent and police investigations, the election being overturned and Rahman banned from running in the rerun, the council being taken over by Whitehall appointed commissioners because the Mayor awarded funds to groups he supported to help boost his vote (the main parties would never use taxpayer funds to boost votes amongst their target supporters would they?!). Apparently abuse of postal votes, use of false addresses to cast votes, multiple people at single addresses found and voters being bribed with food and drink was identified.
Considering Rahman had been a Labour councillor for 8 years before hand including 2 years as Labour council leader you must wonder where he and his former Labour activist supporters and councillors learned their 'election winning skills'? ......
Labour seemed to have a huge issue with it - when it was being used against them and causing them to lose elections!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
Incidentally- wasn't there a story recently about Guido being Official Social Media Provider to the Boris campaign?
And I think the word they should have used for the second one is 'perjury,' but that's a word that might have been too dim to have heard of.
Might hold off though. Like you I hope something derails him and I guess it is not impossible. Him being what he is.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2019-06-08/news/michael-gove-confesses-to-taking-cocaine-c03h3rjmg
I thought it was symptomatic of the 2017 campaign that May was unwilling/unable to participate in the leaders debates. High handed arrogance.
Twas the same lack of scrutiny that brought you TM PM
See for example the reactions to May telling a nurse there was no magic money tree, or Milliband telling the QT audience that Labour didn't overspend in office.
Start with the composition of the audience (party members, or assorted trots and greens)?
The selection of the questions, and of the subjects of debate?
The to-and-fro format of the debate?
The length of the debate (the usual 2-3 hour hustings, or a shorter, packaged-for-tv format)
Also questions about favouritism of one broadcaster over another, and of broadcasters in general trying to insert themselves uninvited into what’s an internal party election. There’s no regulated ‘election period’ and no requirement for the broadcaster to show impartiality.
Much better for the party to organise half a dozen 3-hour hustings and put them all online free of any copyright, 18 hours of debate for anyone who wishes to listen before they cast their vote.
'Speaking on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, he said: "I do have a profound sense of regret about it all and I am very, very aware of the damage that drugs do."
Mr Gove acknowledged he was "fortunate" not to have gone to prison.
"I deeply regret the mistake that I made," the environment secretary added, denying he had ever had a drug "habit".'
Headline:
Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48572982
Who is driving this all - and why is Michael Gove the target. After all most of the candidates are from a generation who at university and beyond must have all been exposed to this sort of thing even if they didn't all partake.
We even have Andrea Leadsom admitted she had smoked cannabis at university but has never done since. Did we need to know?
The fact Gove backed the Withdrawal Agreement also makes it more likely Barnier might give him a hearing which would not be the case for Raab
The idea of her teaching a class however is Virgin on the ridiculous.
Nothing much happened under May re Brexit that Hammond didn't want.
The Mail says Gove *hosted* a party where cocaine was available...
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/av96skv1vw/TheTimes_190606_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
So is the implication that he's not just a smackhead, he's a pusher?
My word, that would put the cat among the pigeons.
Moreover, that's the sort of thing the rozzers might investigate...